This development simply leaves the door wide open for other carriers to replace Lockton and Chubb with legally compliant programs. It also leaves the window wide open for politicians facing the current set of NY Dems behind this proper regulatory action. It was the proper thing to do, but, in the end, politically motivated and intended to put blame on NRA members for far more heinous actions of a few mentally disturbed individuals who were NOT NRA members.
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
Shame on me for assuming the policy was non-compliant. Thanks to Lauren for the clarification below. {muffled sound of polar bear paws clapping together}
Polar – an issue for other companies trying to enter the market might be gaining approval for their rates. If I read the article correctly, Lockton has never had a claim on this insurance. NY may use that loss experience to challenge the rates others want to charge. How does a company justify their premiums for a policy with a zero loss ratio? I’m just a product manager so I’d love to hear an actuary speak up on that one.
New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) officials determined that some of the coverages themselves and limits are not permissible under the state’s law; that the NRA is not a licensed broker in the state yet Lockton paid the group royalties and profit-sharing; that the tying of the insurance to a free membership valued at more than $25 is illegal; and that Lockton Affinity neglected to obtain the necessary declinations from standard markets on policies placed in the excess and surplus lines market.
As for the coverage, the DFS said the Carry Guard program “improperly provided” coverage in any criminal proceeding against the policyholder including coverage for bail money, premiums on bonds, attorney consultation fee and retainer expenses, expenses incurred for the investigation or defense of criminal charges, and costs taxed against the insured or the insured’s resident family member in a criminal proceeding arising out of a shooting.
New York- bastion of watching for regulations to be followed….NOT
Madoff investment scandal. … In December of that year, Bernard Madoff, the former NASDAQ Chairman and founder of the Wall Street firm Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, admitted that the wealth management arm of his business was an elaborate Ponzi scheme.
Simply Libtards trying to find deep pockets again.
Are not the liberals screaming for liability coverage to be in place regarding gun owners? The most significant component of the product is exactly that civil liability coverage.
Did you read the article? The coverage that they took issue with is CRIMINAL coverage (i.e. attorney’s fees, bail bonds to get out of jail, etc.), not civil coverage – so the insured is effectively buying bank robbery insurance.
Ben, I hope you aren’t that gullible. The insurance is there for someone who acts within the scope of the law, but gets charged with…….whatever. The monies would be used to defend this individual and help to clear himself. While we don’t have the entire policy to read, you can bet that anyone who intentionally violates the law (see murder, bank robbery, etc) there will be no defense costs, etc.
And the bright folks at Lockton, the NRA and the insurance provider, will find a way for the coverage to be legally made available to NY’s law abiding.
This is nothing but a political shake down.
Ben, whatever happened to Innocent until proven guilty? When was the last time you read the Deliberate Acts exclusions on a D&O, EPLI, Professional and similar liability policies? If written correctly, they provide defense until final adjudication. Gun owners should not be treated any differently.
The criminal coverage is applied as a reimbursement if found not guilty. Civil is up front. Obviously if found guilty of a crime, the insurance is void. Lockton did misstep in a few areas from a regulatory perspective but offering an illegal coverage was not one of them. I know it says that but the regulator assertion here is a stretch. You’re either found to have acted in self defense (legal and covered) or excessive force (illegal), not both. Their announcement tried to blur the two.
What about Kidnap and Ransom Insurance? Kidnapping (last time I looked) was a felony and a criminal in nature………..hmmmmmm that coverage has been around for decades.
I’m guessing many people of all political affiliations are still hoping for this liability coverage. The problems in this case, should you choose to read the article, are, “…the coverages themselves and limits are not permissible under the state’s law; that the NRA is not a licensed broker in the state yet Lockton paid the group royalties and profit-sharing; that the tying of the insurance to a free membership valued at more than $25 is illegal; and that Lockton Affinity neglected to obtain the necessary declinations from standard markets on policies placed in the excess and surplus lines market.
Cap- its targeting a pro NRA company PERIOD. Do you think every broker in NY gets audited for declinations from standard markets. Got beach from property for u in Iowa if you think so.
The fact is that this product was most certainly illegal, but I think this says more about the incompetence of regulators than anything else – these people were selling an illegal product for almost twenty years and they JUST caught onto this now? REALLY?
By the way, most brokers fail to get proper admitted market declanations for E&S policies anyway, so that’s not a shocker. This is going to only get worse with the continued rise of MGA/MGUs.
Too funny…….and wrong….and so NY. In some states, punitive damages are not compensable via an insurance contract, in some states they are. If the coverage is illegal in NY, then the policy should be revised so as to meet state statutes.
This is so typical of NY. A free money grab and a chance to take a shot at the NRA. I’d love to see the citizens of NY step up and throw out these liberally combative law makers and officials. Surprised to see them act like a bunch of lemmings.
Oh, and ‘murder insurance’ !! LOL !! What a liberal snowflake thing to say !!! LOTFL !
I have never been arrested, however the corruption of our Justice system is endemic.
I have personally witnessed it.
Innocence and guilt are irrelevant, all that matters is the money flowing into the system. Every arrest means more money.
I watched as a 17 year old girl who had never been arrested was booked into jail even though the guilty party confessed and the forensic evidence subsequently proved the 17 year old girls innocence. Within a year the D/A person and the Police person in charge of the arrest were forced to resign for committing criminal acts. Yet neither one was arrested.
I over heard the discussion between the D/A per and the Police person that the guilty person who confessed was not to be charged.
2 years latter and $15,000 the 17 year old girl was finally free of the system.
Keep your Social Justice Warrior comments to yourself because this is a comment page on NY regulators actions against insurers of the NRA. It is not your soapbox for your personal vendetta against law enforcement agents, corrupt or not.
You don’t get to decide what Oracler says. Remember when you said:
APRIL 17, 2018 AT 9:15 PM
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
@Rosenblatt: I and anyone else posting here DO NOT have to justify our comments…
My comment is a perfect example on why the NRA Insurance Product is needed. If we didn’t have the $15,000 an innocent person would have been falsely convicted.
People frequently go bankrupt defending themselves only to be found innocent and the Justice System says too bad!
Let’s not rush to judgement. Other than “sharing” money with the NRA when they are not a licensed agent, I find nothing wrong with the actual policy. It certainly is NOT “murder insurance”. The coverage form can be found here:
This policy does NOT cover criminal activity. Per page 1 it covers BI or PD arising out of the use of a legally possessed firearm ONLY while engaged in:
1. Hunting or trapping or recreational shooting on public or private land;
2. Shooting at competitions or for recreation at hunt clubs, gun clubs or supervised commercial or private “ranges”;
3. Shooting other than as listed in 1. or 2. where such shooting is an “accidental discharge”, and not prohibited or restricted by any local, state, federal, or provincial law; or
4. Caused by the use of a “legally possessed firearm” by the “individual insured member” while engaged in an “act of self-defense.” ; or
5. Caused by the use of a “legally possessed firearm” by a “resident family member” while engaged in an “act of self-defense” occurring at the “residence premises.”
Also, exclusion O. excludes “any claim arising out of a criminal act” except “self-defense”.
This is a useful policy for gun owners and doesn’t need to be demonized.
Thank you for that analysis. I had a hunch it was something like that but didn’t know for sure. Now it’s clear. Lockton is guilty of rebating but there is nothing wrong with the policy itself. Shame on DFS. This is not the first time they have used their broad authority to force the insurance industry to conform to Liberal ideals. It’s getting really nightmarish.
Planet, you didn’t answer the question. We are waiting.
May 3, 2018 at 7:30 pm
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
Like or Dislike:
1
7
Platitude; your BOTs were neutered and you’re failing to debate anything with any substantive replies. What is your purpose for commenting… er, re-posting old posts? Let me guess; you have no purpose but to troll conservatives on an insurance website.
May 3, 2018 at 11:33 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
11
3
Nope, once again you are wrong, Yogi. I am so old, I remember when you said people shouldn’t insult other posters. What I am showing is, you and Agent are the greatest offenders of that. Hypocrites!
May 3, 2018 at 11:43 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
8
3
Oh, and by the way Agent, you never asked a question. All you made were statements alluding to your hatred of “progressives”. Next time, ask a question and I’ll answer it. They call me Allen Iverson – The Answer
Agent – a good product manager finds a way to grow and make money within the regulatory environment of each state, no matter how crazy, liberal, or conservative it may be. The NY market is too large for companies to ignore it – just like Texas is too large to walk away despite the preponderance of hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, thunderstorms, and hail.
None of what you wrote makes the policy language ‘illegal’ or ‘non-compliant’. Stick to the terms ‘rebate’ and ‘refund’ and you’ll be on the right track regarding the politically motivated action by the NY regulators.
a) don’t tell me what terms I have to stick with. I’m free to post what I want. #america
b) if what I copied and pasted from the article, which are the arguments raised by the prosecution, Lawton should never have settled because they would’ve won in court
c) are you REALLY trying to argue that not getting declinations — WHICH IS REQUIRED BY NY LAW — was not illegal? please explain
Rosen- free to post? My xxx, comments are removed all the time.
May 7, 2018 at 4:09 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
5
Rosenblatt, I am still trying to figure out who Lawton is. I am clear on the difference between an island and an estuary, but you aren’t.
May 7, 2018 at 4:19 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
5
0
I’m sorry I made a typo. You’re doing great work pointing that out. It’s very helpful. Keep up the great work. (that’s sarcasm if you couldn’t tell)
island = land & estuary = water. Enough with that nonsense already
May 7, 2018 at 5:00 pm
sal says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
I guess it could be worse, Rosenblatt. You could’ve replied using your actual personal email address. You know, like the time someone did that and you and I tried to get the comment deleted for the posters’ own safety?
May 9, 2018 at 1:25 pm
helpingout says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Mike (Agent),
Grow up and move past the estuary situation where you misinterpreted the argument of rosen. If you cannot move past that you do not deserve to be here.
May 4, 2018 at 1:05 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
2
You are ignorant of court rulings.
$12 million in premiums….hmmm, at least $1.2 million in commissions with profit sharing on top of that. Some arrogant Lockton broker is suddenly in deficit in his Schedule K! Get out your checkbook porkchop.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
This development simply leaves the door wide open for other carriers to replace Lockton and Chubb with legally compliant programs. It also leaves the window wide open for politicians facing the current set of NY Dems behind this proper regulatory action. It was the proper thing to do, but, in the end, politically motivated and intended to put blame on NRA members for far more heinous actions of a few mentally disturbed individuals who were NOT NRA members.
Shame on me for assuming the policy was non-compliant. Thanks to Lauren for the clarification below. {muffled sound of polar bear paws clapping together}
Polar – an issue for other companies trying to enter the market might be gaining approval for their rates. If I read the article correctly, Lockton has never had a claim on this insurance. NY may use that loss experience to challenge the rates others want to charge. How does a company justify their premiums for a policy with a zero loss ratio? I’m just a product manager so I’d love to hear an actuary speak up on that one.
Wow
New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) officials determined that some of the coverages themselves and limits are not permissible under the state’s law; that the NRA is not a licensed broker in the state yet Lockton paid the group royalties and profit-sharing; that the tying of the insurance to a free membership valued at more than $25 is illegal; and that Lockton Affinity neglected to obtain the necessary declinations from standard markets on policies placed in the excess and surplus lines market.
As for the coverage, the DFS said the Carry Guard program “improperly provided” coverage in any criminal proceeding against the policyholder including coverage for bail money, premiums on bonds, attorney consultation fee and retainer expenses, expenses incurred for the investigation or defense of criminal charges, and costs taxed against the insured or the insured’s resident family member in a criminal proceeding arising out of a shooting.
New York- bastion of watching for regulations to be followed….NOT
Madoff investment scandal. … In December of that year, Bernard Madoff, the former NASDAQ Chairman and founder of the Wall Street firm Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, admitted that the wealth management arm of his business was an elaborate Ponzi scheme.
Simply Libtards trying to find deep pockets again.
Are not the liberals screaming for liability coverage to be in place regarding gun owners? The most significant component of the product is exactly that civil liability coverage.
Did you read the article? The coverage that they took issue with is CRIMINAL coverage (i.e. attorney’s fees, bail bonds to get out of jail, etc.), not civil coverage – so the insured is effectively buying bank robbery insurance.
LOL Ben !! Bank robbery insurance ! Murder insurance !! Too funny !!
Ben, I hope you aren’t that gullible. The insurance is there for someone who acts within the scope of the law, but gets charged with…….whatever. The monies would be used to defend this individual and help to clear himself. While we don’t have the entire policy to read, you can bet that anyone who intentionally violates the law (see murder, bank robbery, etc) there will be no defense costs, etc.
And the bright folks at Lockton, the NRA and the insurance provider, will find a way for the coverage to be legally made available to NY’s law abiding.
This is nothing but a political shake down.
Ben, whatever happened to Innocent until proven guilty? When was the last time you read the Deliberate Acts exclusions on a D&O, EPLI, Professional and similar liability policies? If written correctly, they provide defense until final adjudication. Gun owners should not be treated any differently.
NY Broker. Exactly right. Defense expenses are ok for wall street, but not main street. There is no coverage under this policy for criminal acts.
Ben- equating self defense to bank robbery is the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen posted on IJ.
The criminal coverage is applied as a reimbursement if found not guilty. Civil is up front. Obviously if found guilty of a crime, the insurance is void. Lockton did misstep in a few areas from a regulatory perspective but offering an illegal coverage was not one of them. I know it says that but the regulator assertion here is a stretch. You’re either found to have acted in self defense (legal and covered) or excessive force (illegal), not both. Their announcement tried to blur the two.
Capt Cut-n-Pastiche re-appears with no original thoughts….
Yogi just doesn’t like being called out as the hypocrite he is. So, he has to try this approach. Nice try, pal.
Does that not also then make bail bond coverage for Auto infractions illegal also? Just wondering?
What about Kidnap and Ransom Insurance? Kidnapping (last time I looked) was a felony and a criminal in nature………..hmmmmmm that coverage has been around for decades.
I’m guessing many people of all political affiliations are still hoping for this liability coverage. The problems in this case, should you choose to read the article, are, “…the coverages themselves and limits are not permissible under the state’s law; that the NRA is not a licensed broker in the state yet Lockton paid the group royalties and profit-sharing; that the tying of the insurance to a free membership valued at more than $25 is illegal; and that Lockton Affinity neglected to obtain the necessary declinations from standard markets on policies placed in the excess and surplus lines market.
Cap- its targeting a pro NRA company PERIOD. Do you think every broker in NY gets audited for declinations from standard markets. Got beach from property for u in Iowa if you think so.
Jack, your argument sounds a little snowflakey.
Says the guy with a serious case of TDS.
Only 2 u Cap..only 2 u.
Yes, Yogi, we know you are. Start calling you Alicia Silverstone.
The fact is that this product was most certainly illegal, but I think this says more about the incompetence of regulators than anything else – these people were selling an illegal product for almost twenty years and they JUST caught onto this now? REALLY?
By the way, most brokers fail to get proper admitted market declanations for E&S policies anyway, so that’s not a shocker. This is going to only get worse with the continued rise of MGA/MGUs.
Too funny…….and wrong….and so NY. In some states, punitive damages are not compensable via an insurance contract, in some states they are. If the coverage is illegal in NY, then the policy should be revised so as to meet state statutes.
This is so typical of NY. A free money grab and a chance to take a shot at the NRA. I’d love to see the citizens of NY step up and throw out these liberally combative law makers and officials. Surprised to see them act like a bunch of lemmings.
Oh, and ‘murder insurance’ !! LOL !! What a liberal snowflake thing to say !!! LOTFL !
Why did IJ choose a picture of what appears to be a child aiming a loaded gun at us?
U must be new here mikey.
I have never been arrested, however the corruption of our Justice system is endemic.
I have personally witnessed it.
Innocence and guilt are irrelevant, all that matters is the money flowing into the system. Every arrest means more money.
I watched as a 17 year old girl who had never been arrested was booked into jail even though the guilty party confessed and the forensic evidence subsequently proved the 17 year old girls innocence. Within a year the D/A person and the Police person in charge of the arrest were forced to resign for committing criminal acts. Yet neither one was arrested.
I over heard the discussion between the D/A per and the Police person that the guilty person who confessed was not to be charged.
2 years latter and $15,000 the 17 year old girl was finally free of the system.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
You don’t get to decide what Oracler says. Remember when you said:
APRIL 17, 2018 AT 9:15 PM
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
@Rosenblatt: I and anyone else posting here DO NOT have to justify our comments…
My comment is a perfect example on why the NRA Insurance Product is needed. If we didn’t have the $15,000 an innocent person would have been falsely convicted.
People frequently go bankrupt defending themselves only to be found innocent and the Justice System says too bad!
Let’s not rush to judgement. Other than “sharing” money with the NRA when they are not a licensed agent, I find nothing wrong with the actual policy. It certainly is NOT “murder insurance”. The coverage form can be found here:
https://lockton.nracarryguard.com/pdfs/individual-state-policy.pdf
This policy does NOT cover criminal activity. Per page 1 it covers BI or PD arising out of the use of a legally possessed firearm ONLY while engaged in:
1. Hunting or trapping or recreational shooting on public or private land;
2. Shooting at competitions or for recreation at hunt clubs, gun clubs or supervised commercial or private “ranges”;
3. Shooting other than as listed in 1. or 2. where such shooting is an “accidental discharge”, and not prohibited or restricted by any local, state, federal, or provincial law; or
4. Caused by the use of a “legally possessed firearm” by the “individual insured member” while engaged in an “act of self-defense.” ; or
5. Caused by the use of a “legally possessed firearm” by a “resident family member” while engaged in an “act of self-defense” occurring at the “residence premises.”
Also, exclusion O. excludes “any claim arising out of a criminal act” except “self-defense”.
This is a useful policy for gun owners and doesn’t need to be demonized.
Thank you for that analysis. I had a hunch it was something like that but didn’t know for sure. Now it’s clear. Lockton is guilty of rebating but there is nothing wrong with the policy itself. Shame on DFS. This is not the first time they have used their broad authority to force the insurance industry to conform to Liberal ideals. It’s getting really nightmarish.
mr, a lot of companies should just withdraw from NY altogether since these dem witted Progressives are in charge.
APRIL 4, 2018 AT 5:37 PM
Agent says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
5
Are you high again?
Planet, you didn’t answer the question. We are waiting.
Platitude; your BOTs were neutered and you’re failing to debate anything with any substantive replies. What is your purpose for commenting… er, re-posting old posts? Let me guess; you have no purpose but to troll conservatives on an insurance website.
Nope, once again you are wrong, Yogi. I am so old, I remember when you said people shouldn’t insult other posters. What I am showing is, you and Agent are the greatest offenders of that. Hypocrites!
Oh, and by the way Agent, you never asked a question. All you made were statements alluding to your hatred of “progressives”. Next time, ask a question and I’ll answer it. They call me Allen Iverson – The Answer
Why do you consider ‘dem witted’ to be a proxy for something else (insult)?
Agent – a good product manager finds a way to grow and make money within the regulatory environment of each state, no matter how crazy, liberal, or conservative it may be. The NY market is too large for companies to ignore it – just like Texas is too large to walk away despite the preponderance of hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, thunderstorms, and hail.
Thanks for that information, Lauren. While the policy isn’t ‘murder insurance’, there still seem to be issues with the legality of this, such as:
“that the NRA is not a licensed broker in the state yet Lockton paid the group royalties and profit-sharing
“that the tying of the insurance to a free membership valued at more than $25 is illegal
“that Lockton Affinity neglected to obtain the necessary declinations from standard markets on policies placed in the excess and surplus lines market.
None of what you wrote makes the policy language ‘illegal’ or ‘non-compliant’. Stick to the terms ‘rebate’ and ‘refund’ and you’ll be on the right track regarding the politically motivated action by the NY regulators.
a) don’t tell me what terms I have to stick with. I’m free to post what I want. #america
b) if what I copied and pasted from the article, which are the arguments raised by the prosecution, Lawton should never have settled because they would’ve won in court
c) are you REALLY trying to argue that not getting declinations — WHICH IS REQUIRED BY NY LAW — was not illegal? please explain
Rosen- free to post? My xxx, comments are removed all the time.
Rosenblatt, I am still trying to figure out who Lawton is. I am clear on the difference between an island and an estuary, but you aren’t.
I’m sorry I made a typo. You’re doing great work pointing that out. It’s very helpful. Keep up the great work. (that’s sarcasm if you couldn’t tell)
island = land & estuary = water. Enough with that nonsense already
I guess it could be worse, Rosenblatt. You could’ve replied using your actual personal email address. You know, like the time someone did that and you and I tried to get the comment deleted for the posters’ own safety?
Mike (Agent),
Grow up and move past the estuary situation where you misinterpreted the argument of rosen. If you cannot move past that you do not deserve to be here.
PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
2
You are ignorant of court rulings.
Is it any wonder why NY has so many citizens picking up and moving out of state? These people are insane.
$12 million in premiums….hmmm, at least $1.2 million in commissions with profit sharing on top of that. Some arrogant Lockton broker is suddenly in deficit in his Schedule K! Get out your checkbook porkchop.
I would like bob to weigh in on this one…